O presente estudo buscou compreender como o problema da cumplicidade civil da imprensa está colocado na Justiça de Transição: quais atos são entendidos como cumplicidade? Quais instituições civis foram cúmplices? De fato, em tempos de poderes ilimitados, houve “cumplicidade civil”? Com base no conceito de “Doutrina de Segurança Nacional” para interpretar o autoritarismo pós Segunda Guerra Mundial na América Latina, são comparados os casos brasileiro e argentino a partir da hipótese que a diferença de modelo de justiça de transição dos dois países também seria verificada na aplicação dos mecanismos ao problema da cumplicidade civil da imprensa. Para tanto, a pesquisa qualitativa examinou como a imprensa é abordada no Relatório final da Comissão Nacional de Desaparecimento de Pessoas da Argentina (CONADEP, 1985), no Relatório final da Comissão de Mortos e Desaparecidos Políticos do Brasil (CMDP, 2007) e nas obras referências sobre o problema da cumplicidade civil da imprensa “Cães de guarda: jornalistas e censores, do AI- 5 à Constituição de 1988, de Beatriz Kushnir (2004) e "Decíamos ayer: La prensa argentina bajo el Proceso, de Eduardo Blaustein e Martín Zubieta (1998)". Valendo-se de uma abordagem crítica da teoria da justiça de transição, ao realçar conceitos da teoria da cultura política para expandir o espectro das instituições e estruturas sociais alvos de uma restruturação que garanta a não-repetição, o estudo se propõe a mitigar o relativo silêncio e esquecimento do comportamento dos civis, em geral, e da imprensa, em maior grau, no enfrentamento dos legados do autoritarismo. A partir do estudo comparado, pode-se concluir que a diferença de modelo de transição entre os países não repercute em significativas diferenças no tratamento dado ao tema da cumplicidade civil da imprensa pela justiça de transição. Embora esteja presente uma colaboração difusa das grandes instituições de imprensa com o autoritarismo, os poderes de veto e de agenda dessas instituições na democracia impede a busca pela verdade e memória no campo. Por fim, ao final do estudo é proposto uma tipologia de seis práticas de cumplicidade civil da imprensa e uma agenda para a justiça de transição que avance no desafio de delimitar a fronteira entre a censura política à imprensa, própria do autoritarismo, e a adesão voluntária às práticas repressivas do autoritarismo. Assim, direcionar efetivamente os esforços justransicionais para os setores civis, em especial a imprensa, representaria uma verdadeira investida na principal base da ditadura: a cultura autoritária das instituições e dos indivíduos. / This study aims to comprehend how the problem of civil complicity of press lies within Transitional Justice: what acts are understood as complicity? What civil institutions were complicit? In fact, in times of unlimited power, was there "civil complicity"? Based on the concept of the "National Security Doctrine" to interpret the post World War II authoritarianism in Latin America, the Brazilian and Argentine cases are compared assuming that the Transitional Justice different models of this two countries would also be verified in the application of mechanisms to the press civil complicity issue. Therefore, qualitative research examined how the press is addressed in the Final Report of the National Commission for Disappeared People of Argentina (CONADEP, 1985), in the Final Report of the Commission of the Political Dead and Disappeared of Brazil (CMDP, 2007) and in the paradigm works on the problem of civil complicity of the press "Cães de guarda: jornalistas e censores, do AI-5 à Constituição de 1988”, from Beatriz Kushnir (2004) and “Decíamos ayer: La prensa argentina bajo el Proceso”, from Eduardo Blaustein and Martín Zubieta (1998). Drawing on a critical approach to Transitional Justice theory, enhancing political culture theory concepts to expand the spectrum of institutions and social structures targets of restructuring to ensure the non- repetition, this study aims to mitigate the relative silence and oblivion of the behavior of civilians, in general, and of the press, to a greater degree, in dealing with authoritarian legacies. From the comparative study, we can conclude that the transition model of different countries do not reflected in significant differences in the treatment given to the subject of civil complicity of the press by Transitional Justice. Although there is the presence of a diffuse collaboration of major media institutions with authoritarianism, the veto and agenda powers of these institutions in democracy hinders the search for truth and memory in the field. Finally, at the end of the study, a six press civil complicity practices typology is proposed, as well as an agenda for Transitional Justice that goes on the challenge of defining the boundary between political censorship of the press, typical from authoritarianism, and the voluntary adherence to repressive authoritarianism practices. Thus, effectively directing justransicionals efforts to the civilian sectors, especially the press, represents a real assault on the main base of the dictatorship: the authoritarian culture of both institutions and individuals.

Entre as décadas de 1960 e 1980, Brasil e Argentina vivenciaram ditaduras de segurança nacional. As diferentes experiências vividas por essas nações possuem alguns elos em comum: a tomada do poder pelas Forças Armadas, a aplicação da Doutrina de Segurança Nacional, suspensão de direitos e garantias fundamentais, o consequente estabelecimento do Terrorismo de Estado e, por fim, a aprovação de algum tipo de anistia ao fim desses regimes. Tendo diferentes designações, as leis aprovadas visavam um mesmo objetivo: impossibilitar a responsabilização de militares e civis pelas inúmeras violações a direitos humanos cometidas durante as ditaduras. O discurso de “virar a página e olhar para o futuro” esteve presente em ambos os países, e foi usado para propagar a ideia da pacificação nacional. A partir dos anos 2000, já em um contexto de democracias consolidadas, o quadro difere imensamente. Enquanto na Argentina, entre 2004 e 2007, a Corte Suprema de la Nación julgou inconstitucionais todos os dispositivos que representavam obstáculos ao julgamento dos crimes da ditadura (Lei de Obediência Devida, a Lei do Ponto Final e os indultos concedidos por Carlos Menem), no Brasil, o Supremo Tribunal Federal julgou improcedente, em 2010, uma ação ajuizada pela Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) e considerou a Lei da Anistia (Lei n. 6.683/79) fruto de um acordo político e, por consequência, impossível de ser revisado. Partindo dessas premissas, o presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar o posicionamento das Cortes Supremas de Brasil e Argentina no que diz respeito à responsabilização penal dos crimes de lesa humanidade cometidos pelas ditaduras. As decisões dos fallos Arancibia Clavel, Simón e Mazzeo, e a sentença da Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental (ADPF) n. 153, serão comparadas sob o viés histórico do contexto democrático nas quais foram geradas, buscando compreender a discrepância entre os entendimentos das Cortes e do quadro atual de ambos os países no que diz respeito à efetivação de mecanismos de justiça de transição. / Between the decades of 1960 and 1980, Brazil and Argentina have experienced dictatorships. The different experiences for these nations have some links in common: the seizure of power by the armed forces, the application of the national security doctrine, suspension of fundamental rights and guarantees, the consequent establishment of State terrorism and, finally, the adoption of some kind of amnesty in the end of those regimes. Having different designations, the laws adopted had the same goal: make it impossible the accountability of military and civilians by the numerous human rights violations committed during the dictatorships. The speech of "turn the page and look to the future" was present in both countries, and was used to propagate the idea of “national pacification”. From the year 2000, in a context of consolidated democracies, the situation differs immensely. While in Argentina, between 2004 and 2007, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional all devices that represent obstacles to the prosecution of crimes commited by the dictatorship ( the Due Obedience Law, the Final Point Law and pardons granted by President Carlos Menem), in Brazil, the Supreme Court dismissed, in 2010, an action filed by the Bar Association of Brazil, and considered the Amnesty Law (Law n. 6.683/79) the result of a political agreement and, consequently, impossible to review. Starting from these premises, the present study aims to analyze the positioning of the Supreme Courts of Brazil and Argentina, with regard to the criminal liability of the crimes against humanity committed by dictatorships. Decisions of “fallos” Arancibia Clavel, Simón and Mazzeo, and the sentence in the Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamentl (ADPF) n. 153 will be compared under the historical bias of the democratic context in which they were generated, seeking to understand the discrepancy between the understandings of the courts and of the current framework of both countries regarding the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms.

Esta dissertação consiste na análise da evolução da política de segurança do governo colombiano entre 2008 e 2016 para lidar com as FARC, conjuntamente com a análise da evolução das preferências de atores políticos domésticos e internacionais que compuseram uma representação da sociedade colombiana e de suas relações internacionais em momentos-chave desta transição. As preferências destes atores foram agrupadas em tipos ideais: a favor da exclusividade do combate militar ou de negociações que, informalmente reunidas, formam coalizões multiníveis em prol de uma ou outra diretriz. O objetivo foi identificar qual sustentação política possibilitou uma ruptura na política de segurança colombiana antes exclusivamente voltada ao combate e que se direcionou para o início de negociações dado que, diferentemente das duas rupturas anteriores, esta não foi resultado de uma escolha direta da população nas eleições presidenciais. A hipótese sustentada na pesquisa é que mudanças contextuais ocorreram simultaneamente nos âmbitos doméstico e internacional e que ambas foram igualmente necessárias para o sucesso desta transição. Estas mudanças contextuais geraram também uma mudança de narrativa da promoção da imagem da Colômbia como um Estado frágil para a de um país em franco desenvolvimento. A contribuição a que esta pesquisa se propõe é romper a barreira de análise destes dois âmbitos tratados na literatura primordialmente de forma cindida, impondo um empecilho para a compreensão desta política que é simultaneamente doméstica e internacional, impedindo uma maior compreensão dos mecanismos causais da sua evolução. Esta análise simultânea permitiu identificar um descompasso entre o entusiasmo internacional com a negociação e um cenário doméstico polarizado com preferências conflitantes. Os elementos que a pesquisa encontra como determinantes para esta transição são que este conflito, que fora intensamente internacionalizado, ter passado por um processo de \"renacionalização\" e também de estagnação em um confronto de baixa intensidade, redistribuindo os custos e os pesos dos atores politicamente determinantes. Em relação aos atores políticos, a pesquisa identifica que foram necessários para a transição: o presidente colombiano e as FARC, o Congresso colombiano, EUA e Venezuela. O apoio direto da mídia, da opinião pública e da União Europeia não teriam sido necessários, mas são importantes para a consistência política e para o sucesso na implementação da negociação e do processo transicional. / This work is an analysis of how the Colombian security policy to deal with FARC evolved between 2008 and 2016 and an analysis of how evolved the preferences of domestic and international political actors that composed a representation of the Colombian society and its international relations around key moments of this transition. The preferences of those actors were grouped in two ideal types: in favor of the military combat versus those favoring negotiations. Informally united, those actors formed multilevel coalitions in favor of one of those preferences. The goal was to identify which was the political support that enabled a radical change in the Colombian security policy from the military combat to negotiation considering that, differently from the two preceding political changes, this was not the result of a direct popular choice through presidential elections. The hipotesis sustained in this research is that contextual changes happened both in the domestic and international spheres and that both were necessary to enable this policy transition. Those contextual evolutions also generated the change of the main Colombian political narrative, from the promotion of the Colombian image as a fragile State to the one of a country in full development. This work contributes to break the analytical barrier between the domestic and international spheres, treated mostly as separated parts in the academy, which constitutes a barrier to the comprehension of this policy that is simultaneously domestic and international, demanding a double level analysis to understand its causal mechanisms. This simultaneous analysis enabled the identification of a large imbalance among the constant international enthusiasm and many conflicting preferences at the polarized domestic sphere. The factors that the research finds as determinant to this transition were the fact that this conflict that was intensely internationalized passed by a process of \'renationalization\' and by a process of stagnation at a low intensety confrontation redistributing the operational and political costs and also the relative relevance of the intervening political actors. Regarding these political actors, the research identified that the Presidency, FARC, Colombian congress, USA and Venezuela were necessary to the policy transition. The direct support from the Colombian population, the media and the European Union were not necessary, but were important to the political consistency and will be crucial to the success of the transitional process.

Through the Colombian Institute for Family Welfare (ICBF), the Colombian government aims to provide comprehensive reintegration for children demobilized from the country’s various armed groups. The reestablishment of rights, including the right to health (guaranteed by the Colombian constitution), is a key factor in successful reintegration. This thesis explores the topic of access to health care and health seeking behavior among former child soldiers in Manizales, Colombia who are over the age of 18 and were previously in the Hogar Tutor program (foster care-based youth reintegration) in Manizales. This thesis utilizes semi-structured interviews (n=9) and body mapping (n=9) with former child soldiers, key-informant interviews, participant observation, and a review of archival and secondary sources, including survey data, which is used to complement this research. This research is focused on understanding the barriers participants are experiencing in accessing health care, how participants understand and experience health and the health care system, and how health is handled within reintegration programs. Findings illustrate the incompatibility of transitional justice and the right to health within a neoliberal health system. This research suggests that former child soldiers face significant barriers in access to health care, experience persistent health conditions related to the conflict, and may be insufficiently aware of their rights as both citizens and victims of the armed conflict. These challenges likely affect the ability of former child soldiers to successfully reintegrate. This thesis provides recommendations for future research, as well as for the implementation of- and changes to- health education efforts within the ICBF and the Colombia Agency for Reintegration (ACR).

Magister Legum - LLM

Magister Legum - LLM

Des faits historiques peuvent-ils, plusieurs décennies après leur survenance, générer une situation préjudiciable au point d’en faire découler une forme de responsabilité juridique spécifique ? Cette étude se situe au carrefour de la justice constitutionnelle et de la justice transitionnelle, entendue comme l’ensemble des mécanismes permettant de rendre la justice à la suite de périodes de grande violence, par l’identification des responsabilités, l’octroi de réparations et la manifestation de la vérité. Cette thèse considère que la défaillance de la justice rendue consécutivement à une situation de violences extrêmes et bien souvent massives est susceptible de générer un « préjudice historique ». Elle démontre la nécessité de consacrer une responsabilité juridique et juridictionnelle résultant du préjudice historique. Néanmoins, le caractère anormal des situations de violence extrême génère des préjudices « extraordinaires » qui imposent une réponse dépassant la mise en œuvre des mécanismes juridiques habituels. La réflexion est donc menée sur la possible existence d’un « dommage constitutionnel » en tant que fondement potentiel de la responsabilité du fait du préjudice historique. Dès lors, cette thèse se veut une réflexion plus générale sur l’impuissance du droit en dehors de ses mécanismes traditionnels et sur la nécessité de dépasser ses limites et de développer de nouveaux moyens permettant d’appréhender une réalité sociale dont il reste encore trop éloigné / Can historical facts, several decades after their occurrence, lead to the recognition of an injurious situation, giving rise to a specific form of legal accountability? This doctoral study is set up at the crossroads of constitutional and transitional justice. These latter can be defined as the set of mechanisms seeking to achieve justice after times of massive violence including responsibility, reparations and the recognition of truth. This doctoral study asserts that the failure of justice in the aftermath of extreme violence and mass crimes is likely to generate a specific “historical wrong”. It reveals the necessity to recognize a legal and judicial accountability resulting from an historical wrong. However, the exceptional nature of extreme violence acts generates “extra-ordinary” prejudices, creating a need for the implementation of specific mechanisms beyond the ordinary ones. This thesis will therefore explore the notion of “constitutional damage” as a potential basis to the accountability resulting from historical wrong. Thus, this dissertation exposes a larger issue on the helplessness of the law outside its traditional ordinary mechanisms and on the need to go beyond its limits. It also seeks means to answer and deal with a social reality from which the law would otherwise remain distanced

Extant transitional justice literature examining processes and functions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia have traditionally looked at the output and outcomes from an institutional level of analysis and have neglected to examine how the witness feels about his or her own participation in the process. This project provides deeper perspective from the individual level of analysis based on sequential phases of the testimony process lifecycle: the reason the witness decided to participate with the tribunal, the psychological effect of the testimonial process, and the satisfaction the witness had about their own contribution to the ICTY. I expound upon existing findings and confirm survivors of sexual assault testify more from personal reasons than out of altruistic motivations. I further examine the two competing theories that dominate the discussion of how the testimonial process normatively effects a witness and find demonstrable evidence to confirm either. I create and confirm an explanatory theory that addresses patterns of emotional states both prior to and after completion of testifying, providing a theoretical explanation of negative emotions reported by witnesses both before and after testifying. I also confirm that witnesses who identified being motivated to testify out of an obligation reported a stronger belief that their testimony helped contribute to finding justice while witnesses who participated seeking internal or personal closure believed their participation helped the tribunal establish the truth about the wars in the former Yugoslavia. These findings and information can help to inform best practices for future tribunal services as well as assist victim and witness policies.

This study seeks to answer the questions that arise when applying the UN framework to the existing post-conflict situation in Northern Uganda, while at the same time contributing to the discourse on the right to reparation in international law. / A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Prof S. Tindifa, Human Rights and Peace Centre (HURIPEC), Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Uganda. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa))--University of Pretoria, 2009. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

This dissertation project develops a theoretical understanding of how truth commissions achieve legitimacy and thus contribute to peace and stability in the aftermath of major traumatic events (e.g. civil war, mass killings, regime changes). I identify three components of truth commission legitimacy---authority, fairness, and transparency---that facilitate beneficial outcomes for societies emerging from a period of severe human rights repression or civil war. I theorize and test how institutions with these legitimacy characteristics contribute to an increase in respect for human rights and decrease political violence in transitioning societies, thus contributing to peace and stability. In order to test the hypothesized relationships, I create a truth commission characteristic dataset that provides greater detail than existing datasets. This project is a contribution to our understanding of the relationships between human rights, institutions, conflict, and international law. It provides one explanation for the inconsistent findings of extant work concerning the impact of transitional justice, generally and truth commissions, specifically. I provide evidence that there are identifiable "best practices" that truth commissions should consider adopting. This information can assist states, intergovernmental organizations, and nongovernmental organizations alike in making difficult decisions regarding the transitional justice process, which is expensive and time consuming further necessitating an understanding of what practices are most crucial for achieving peace and stability.